Barry, R v

Barry, R v

The trial judge was entitled to direct the jury that they could draw an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to give evidence under section 35, as the appellant was not suffering from a condition making it undesirable for him to testify and there were matters relevant to the central issue of diminished responsibility about which he could have given evidence.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Adrian Joseph Barry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Adverse Inference From Silence, Alcohol Dependency Syndrome, Section 35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Criminal Law Murder Diminished Responsibility Adverse Inference From Silence Alcohol Dependency Syndrome Section 35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Adrian Joseph Barry

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that they could draw an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to give evidence under section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in a case involving diminished responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to direct the jury that they could draw an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to give evidence under section 35, as the appellant was not suffering from a condition making it undesirable for him to testify and there were matters relevant to the central issue of diminished responsibility about which he could have given evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.